IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v4y2018i1d10.1057_s41599-017-0054-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Maximising the availability and use of high-quality evidence for policymaking: collaborative, targeted and efficient evidence reviews

Author

Listed:
  • Anna Gavine

    (University of Dundee)

  • Steve MacGillivray

    (University of Dundee)

  • Mary Ross-Davie

    (Royal College of Midwives)

  • Kirstie Campbell

    (University of Dundee)

  • Linda White

    (St. Andrew’s House)

  • Mary Renfrew

    (University of Dundee)

Abstract

A number of barriers have been identified to getting evidence into policy. In particular, a lack of policy relevance and lack of timeliness have been identified as causing tension between researchers and policy makers. Rapid reviews are used increasingly as an approach to address timeliness, however, there is a lack of consensus on the most effective review methods and they do not necessarily address the need of policy makers. In the course of our work with the Scottish Government’s Review of maternity and neonatal services we developed a new approach to evidence synthesis, which this paper will describe. We developed a standardised approach to produce collaborative, targeted and efficient evidence reviews for policy making. This approach aimed to ensure the reviews were policy relevant, high quality and up-to-date, and which were presented in a consistent, transparent, and easy to access format. The approach involved the following stages: 1) establishing a review team with expertise both in the topic and in systematic reviewing, 2) clarifying the review questions with policy makers and subject experts (i.e., health professionals, service user representatives, researchers) who acted as review sponsors, 3) developing review protocols to systematically identify quantitative and qualitative review-level evidence on effectiveness, sustainability and acceptability; if review level evidence was not available, primary studies were sought, 4) agreeing a framework to structure the analysis of the reviews around a consistent set of key concepts and outcomes; in this case a published framework for maternal and newborn care was used, 5) developing an iterative process between policy makers, reviewers and review sponsors, 6) rapid searches and retrieval of literature, 7) analysis of identified literature which was mapped to the framework and included review sponsor input, 8) production of recommendations mapped to the agreed framework and presented as ‘summary topsheets’ in a consistent and easy to read format. Our approach has drawn on different components of pre-existing rapid review methodology to provide a rigorous and pragmatic approach to rapid evidence synthesis. Additionally, the use of a framework to map the evidence helped structure the review questions, expedited the analysis and provided a consistent template for recommendations, which took into account the policy context. We therefore propose that our approach (described in this paper) can be described as producing collaborative, targeted and efficient evidence reviews for policy makers.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna Gavine & Steve MacGillivray & Mary Ross-Davie & Kirstie Campbell & Linda White & Mary Renfrew, 2018. "Maximising the availability and use of high-quality evidence for policymaking: collaborative, targeted and efficient evidence reviews," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-8, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:4:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-017-0054-8
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-017-0054-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-017-0054-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-017-0054-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Warren Pearce & Sujatha Raman, 2014. "The new randomised controlled trials (RCT) movement in public policy: challenges of epistemic governance," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(4), pages 387-402, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Måns Nilsson & Nina Weitz, 2019. "Governing Trade-Offs and Building Coherence in Policy-Making for the 2030 Agenda," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(4), pages 254-263.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anna Wesselink & Hal Colebatch & Warren Pearce, 2014. "Evidence and policy: discourses, meanings and practices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(4), pages 339-344, December.
    2. Eyert, Florian & Irgmaier, Florian & Ulbricht, Lena, 2022. "Extending the framework of algorithmic regulation. The Uber case," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 16(1), pages 23-44.
    3. Andrea Saltelli & Mario Giampietro, 2015. "The fallacy of evidence based policy," Papers 1607.07398, arXiv.org.
    4. Yongjin Choi & Ashley M. Fox & Jennifer Dodge, 2022. "What counts? Policy evidence in public hearing testimonies: the case of single-payer healthcare in New York State," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(4), pages 631-660, December.
    5. Margaret Dalziel, 2018. "Why are there (almost) no randomised controlled trial-based evaluations of business support programmes?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-9, December.
    6. Shihong Guo & Qijiao Song & Ye Qi, 2021. "Innovation or implementation? Local response to low‐carbon policy experimentation in China," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(5), pages 555-569, September.
    7. Kathryn Oliver & Annette Boaz, 2019. "Transforming evidence for policy and practice: creating space for new conversations," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-10, December.
    8. Kathryn Oliver & Warren Pearce, 2017. "Three lessons from evidence-based medicine and policy: increase transparency, balance inputs and understand power," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(1), pages 1-7, December.
    9. Amanda Keddie, 2021. "NGOs working for gender justice with boys and men: Exploring challenges of accountability," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(4), pages 1461-1474, July.
    10. Straßheim, Holger & Korinek, Rebecca-Lea, 2018. "Welten der Verhaltenspolitik: Nudging im inter- und transnationalen Vergleich," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 87(1), pages 81-91.
    11. Florian Eyert & Florian Irgmaier & Lena Ulbricht, 2022. "Extending the framework of algorithmic regulation. The Uber case," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), pages 23-44, January.
    12. Donovan, Kevin P., 2018. "The rise of the randomistas: on the experimental turn in international aid," SocArXiv xygzb, Center for Open Science.
    13. Wintrup, James, 2022. "Promising careers? A critical analysis of a randomised control trial in community health worker recruitment in Zambia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 299(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:4:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-017-0054-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.